[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: separate name uniquification from `generate-new-buffer-name'
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: separate name uniquification from `generate-new-buffer-name' |
Date: |
Tue, 25 May 2010 12:52:32 -0700 |
> > Something I would like to see is separation of <N>-suffix name
> > uniquifying from `generate-new-buffer-name'. The latter could just
> > use the more general unique-naming function (unless C
> > optimization is important in that particular case).
>
> Mostly agreed. As you noticed, uniquify uses advices and
> that should be fixed. A good way to fix it is to come up with a good
> name-buffer-function variable that holds a function that's
> run whenever a buffer name is chosen or modified. This
> variable's default would be a function that implements the
> usual <N> stuff and it could be replaced
> by uniquify to do something more clever.
I agree. Not sure what disagreement there is (why "mostly"?). Everything you say
sounds OK to me.
The kind of uniquifying I proposed, and the kind that generate-new-buffer-name'
does, seem to be quite different from the uniquifying that uniquify.el does.
That does not mean that the logical place for a function such as I proposed
would not be uniquify.el. uniquify.el could either be broadened (e.g. more than
one uniquifying method) or keep to the kind of naming it does now.